User talk:P進大好きbot
private contact hi P進大好きbot, i need to tell you something in private if you don't mind. could you please create an account on googoldon and tell me your username? i'm @vel on there. -- ve 18:59, July 31, 2018 (UTC) : Hi! Thank you for the message. I already have accounts on too many web services e.g. googology wiki, 巨大数研究wiki, twitter, pixiv, and so on, and hence I would not like to create a new account on another web service. I am sorry. If you have a private message, please send a DM on twitter or pixiv. -- p-adic 20:54, July 31, 2018 (UTC) ::no worries, i completely understand. i'll get in touch via pixiv private message. -- ve 22:50, August 4, 2018 (UTC) :::Ok. I replied to the message. -- p-adic 05:50, August 5, 2018 (UTC) Set of rules for BM4 pair sequences I know you've proven that BM2/BM4 pair sequences always terminates. I'm not particularly interested in the details of the proof itself, but I am ''very ''interested in knowing which rule-set you've used in that proof. PsiCubed2 (talk) 10:17, November 20, 2018 (UTC) : As I wrote in the comment of your blog post, I formulated a specific version of PSS in my own way in my blog post of the proof. I did not use any rule set of BM2/BM4. Remember that I also wrote the following: : > It works in the same way as BM1.1, 2, 2.3, 3.1, and 3.2 with respect to the 20/8/2018 version of koteitan's mathematical classification if I am correct. (A proof of the comparison to such existing versions is not verified, because I am not interested in such an unstable work.) : Therefore if you need to know the rule set of BM2 to which I am referring to, then read the one written in the corresponding version of that page. I emphasise that what I dealt with is not BM2 itself, but a specific version of PSS which I explicitly wrote the definition in my proof, and hence it does not matter if there is any trouble on BM2 itself. : p-adic 10:34, November 20, 2018 (UTC) :: That page is in Japense. How do you expect me to read that? PsiCubed2 (talk) 10:53, November 20, 2018 (UTC) ::: There is an alternative translation in English, but it is not precisely what I referred to. Although the contents might be completely the same, I have never verified the coincidence. (At least, I know that the first edition of the English one contained many typos.) Therefore I need to write the link to the original Japanese page so that you can translate it with google by yourself. ::: In addition, I know nothing about BM4. If I had ever stated that my definition actually works in the same way as BM4, then it would be just a typo. ::: p-adic 11:03, November 20, 2018 (UTC) ::: :::: Yeah, I already know that page. It contains only computer code for the relevant version, which is not what I'm looking for. It's absolutely amazing that people are actually writing analyses for this notation, yet nobody is able to provide an actual (non-computer-based) definition. :::: :::: As for your own version of pair sequences, I'm pretty sure I know how it works since they are equivalent to Buchholz Hydras, and I already know how those work :-) PsiCubed2 (talk) 13:50, November 20, 2018 (UTC) Are you a bot? ReactorCoreZero (talk) 23:18, January 30, 2019 (UTC) Are u a bot? : Yes. p-adic 01:01, January 31, 2019 (UTC) What does this mean? So i was wondering what this meant and i would apreciate if anyone could explain it to me...here it is \(\lbrack ()! \wedge \stackrel{\biguplus_{\hookrightarrow}} \rbrack \left\langle \begin{array}{ccc} \surd & \leftrightarrow & \oplus \\ \swarrow & \models & \otimes \end{array} \right\rangle \underbrace{\vdash \rhd \vdash}_{\bot} \bowtie_{\smile \top}^{\wp} \Im_{\mho}\) it is from this post Ynought (talk) 15:50, February 15, 2019 (UTC) Naruyoko (talk) 16:22, February 15, 2019 (UTC) : As I wrote " I emphasise that this table is not the analysis of my ordinal notation, but is a desired image.", it means nothing :D : p-adic 01:17, February 16, 2019 (UTC) well i meant that it should be an ordinal and i meant if you ould explain that ordinal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynought (talk • ) 18:08, February 17, 2019 (UTC) : No. It is just a meaningless string, which just explain that the ordinals might not be what you know because they seem to be greater than the countable collapses of large cardinals. : p-adic 22:17, February 17, 2019 (UTC) :: So it means the same as (0,0,0)(1,1,1)(2,2,2) in a non-specified version of BMS ;-) PsiCubed2 (talk) 15:02, February 20, 2019 (UTC) ::: Exactly. p-adic 22:34, February 20, 2019 (UTC) ::: Thanks Ynought (talk) 08:48, February 23, 2019 (UTC) Is the limit of Stegerts ordinal notation known? Because i couldn't seem to find anything. Ynought (talk) 20:43, April 6, 2019 (UTC) : Stegert introduced two ordinal notations in the thesis available in a repogitry of Munster university. Since I had never read it, I take a brief look at it. According to the explanation in the beginning of Section 2, the first ordinal notation \(T(\Xi)\) perhaps goes beyond the proof theoretic ordinal of \(\Pi_{\omega}-\textrm{Ref}\). I could not find a result on the limit the second ordinal notation \(T(\Upsilon)\) nalogous to \(T(\Xi)\). Maybe it is related to the theory called "Stability". In order to understand precise estimations, we need to read it more deeply. : p-adic 23:18, April 6, 2019 (UTC) Thanks Ynought (talk) 16:37, April 10, 2019 (UTC) Question about OCF and ordinal notation. If I understand correctly (after reading this), the basic requirement for ordinal notation is that it is possible to write any ordinal in a finite way? Not all collapsing functions provide such an opportunity. For example: these and these functions make it possible to write any ordinal in a finite way; therefore, it meet the requirement ordinal notations. But these functions do not provide such an opportunity, so these are just OCFs and not ordinal notations. Scorcher007 (talk) 02:29, May 5, 2019 (UTC) : > the basic requirement for ordinal notation is that it is possible to write any ordinal in a finite way? : : No. It is impossible to "write any ordinal in a finite way". Given a countable set of letters, any expression of ordinals using them just describes countably many ordinals, while there are uncountablly many ordinals. : : I note that if you allow to use uncountably many letters, then the requirement is non-sense, because you can choose to use every ordinal as a letter. Therefore the countability is important. : : > For example: these and these functions make it possible to write any ordinal in a finite way : : It is wrong by the reason above. Moreover, they lack proimitive recursive intrepretations. Since one of the most difficult parts to define an ordinal notation is to define a primitive recursive intrepretation, any OCF without such explicit interpretation could not be regarded as an ordinal notation. It is just a set theoretic stuff irrelevant to computable googology. : : > But these functions do not provide such an opportunity, so these are just OCFs and not ordinal notations. : : Exactly. To be more precise, I think that almost all OCFs created by hyp cos are OCFs which are not equipped with a primitive recursive interpretation so that they yield ordinal notations. Hyp cos just did not know what ordinal notations were at the time, as you can see the fact in the comments to the blog post which you are referring to. Since it is very difficult to construct an ordinal notation, "ordinal notations" created in this wiki are not actual ordinal notations. : : p-adic 03:43, May 5, 2019 (UTC) :: > "write any ordinal in a finite way" :: I meant that with the use of notation, we can express with a finite expression any countable ordinal up to limit of notation. Not all (!), but any successor or limit ordinal. Scorcher007 (talk) 06:25, May 5, 2019 (UTC) ::: Ok. I see what you meant. But my statement does not change. Even if you have an OCF such that you can express all countable ordinals up to limit in a finite expression, it is not an ordinal notation. You need an algorithm (which can be written in arithmetic without using set theory) iterpreting the \(\in\)-relation. If you do not have it, then the resulting notation does not satisfy the definition of an ordinal notation. As I wrote above, it is the most difficult part. Therefore claiming "I created an ordinal notation" by showing a notation without a primitive recursive interpretation of \(\in\)-relation is something like claiming "I created a computable large number" by showing how large it is without an explicit way to compute it. ::: ::: p-adic 07:56, May 5, 2019 (UTC) :::: Oh, thank you. I finally got an understanding. We need arithmetic functions associated with notation expressions! :::: Then we can say that the 1st function from here (Bachmann's style) comes to the definition, because it contains in its definition an arithmetic function ωα. :::: But starting from the second function (Buchholz's style) and other function from here and here no arithmetic functions in the definition, only the definition of sets. Then OCF from here and here can express with a finite expression any countable ordinal up to limit of notation, but do not contain fundamental sequences, which determine arithmetic relation between this ordinals. :::: Then the functions from here don't even allow express with a finite expression any countable ordinal up to limit of notation, because HypCos uses sets of strings instead of sets in a function definition. But if we assume that the sets of strings will be infinite then not way express with a finite expression any countable ordinal. :::: What about professional OCF? At Stegert about the ordinal notation system (which has a limit of KPi+∀n∃σ≥n(Lσ≺1Lσ+n) said only half a page (Stegert 12.4 p 113). But T.Arai wrote 30 pages about ordinal notation system (which has a limit of KP-Пn) with the description of arithmetic functions and without OCF. Finally, what about the TON? On the Taranovsky page I did not find anything about the description of arithmetic functions, although he states that he defined Ordinal Notation. Scorcher007 (talk) 09:07, May 5, 2019 (UTC)